Trump’s Ballot Issue Raises Doubts Among Democratic-Appointed Judges

Paresh Jadhav

Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether plaintiffs in a case can utilize a constitutional provision that disqualifies officials involved in insurrection and rebellion, legal experts predict that its justices will comply with law and dismiss allegations of election fraud.

Trump-nominated judges generally turned away attempts to ease voting rules ahead of Election Day and displayed doubt over any claims of vote rigging made by President Donald Trump.

Justices Question Whether Trump Engaged in Insurrection

After two hours of arguments, it appeared as though the Supreme Court may be poised to overturn a Colorado judge’s finding that Donald Trump took part in an insurrection during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and therefore should be barred from being on March 5 Republican primary ballot ballot. Justices repeatedly asked lawyers representing his rivals questions that suggested they supported his cause in this national case.

Justice Elena Kagan engaged plaintiffs’ lawyer Jason Murray in an important dialogue regarding his interpretation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which bars anyone engaging in an insurrection from holding federal office. That position would permit individual states to use legal means other than an act by Congress to disqualify candidates for president and other federal offices from running for election or nomination; Justice Clarence Thomas suggested this went against original intent of this clause and its purpose.

He challenged Murray as to whether an insurrection could take place without specific plans or organized efforts taking place; after which Justice Clarence Thomas further interrogated Murray about whether an insurrection could take place without specific plans or organized efforts or plans from being established entities like governments being instituted through agencies; an exchange ensued where Justices Elena Kagan interrogated plaintiff’s lawyer Jason Murray regarding interpretation of Section 3, which bars anyone engaged in insurrection from holding federal office, rather than through congresses laws like such clause.

Justice Thomas suggested this was contrary to its original purpose and purpose of clause 3 while pressing him about this interpretation as being part of its original intent while Justice Thomas voiced doubtful that its original understanding and purpose ran contrary to its original understanding and purpose while pressuring Murray as being part of an organized effort or planned from taking place without specific plans being put in place beforehand or not?

Justices Question Whether Trump Engaged in Voter Fraud

The Supreme Court will examine if Donald Trump can be disqualified from running for office under provisions of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. They are scheduled to hear oral arguments Thursday and will issue their ruling shortly afterwards.

At the hearing, several justices voiced doubt as to whether Colorado had the authority to bar Trump from running for office under an insurrection clause that precludes people engaging in insurrection from holding public office. Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson from Colorado’s Democratic-appointed court, among others, signaled they might back plaintiffs against Colorado’s ruling and against running as presidential candidate in 2020.

The justices’ skeptical questions mirrored those of judges who have heard lower court proceedings on Trump’s case, many nominated by both Democrats and Republicans alike, who have rejected his claims of voter fraud or efforts to remove him from the ballot, rejected claims that electoral systems are corrupt, and condemned any efforts by him or anyone else to undermine legal proceedings by accusing judges of bias or corruption.

Trump

Justices Question Whether Trump Engaged in Illegal Activity

Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared skeptical of Donald Trump’s argument that Congress enacted the 14th Amendment to allow states to bar candidates who engaged in insurrection from running for office, although Trump’s lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell argued otherwise; according to Mitchell, January 6 Capitol riot did not amount to insurrection and only Congress can disqualify candidates from running.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed skepticism toward this case, having previously presided over federal cases that involve allegations of voter fraud or attempts to alter presidential election results.

Conservative jurists like Wisconsin state Justice Brian Hagedorn, former president of Northwestern University Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society, also expressed reservations over states claiming power to invalidate election results in states. Hagedorn claimed any decision favoring Colorado voters would open “a dangerous path”. The Supreme Court will render its verdict on June 18 – making this case one of the highest stakes election law disputes to reach court since decades.

Justices Question Whether Trump Engaged in Unconstitutional Activity

On Thursday afternoon during two-hour oral arguments on this matter, conservative and liberal justices alike seemed skeptical of efforts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. Their focus was whether Congress must first take steps before states invoke an amendment adopted after the Civil War that bars former officeholders who engage in insurrection from holding subsequent office; these concerns also covered Trump.

Justices Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared dubious of Mitchell’s arguments, while Sonia Sotomayor seemed uncertain; she was the sole justice who did not inquire further into whether the Capitol Riot was an insurrection or whether the president participated.

But other justices made clear they would largely side with Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and reject Maine’s Democratic secretary of state who disqualified Trump from running there, in turn leading to either an 8-1 or 9-0 verdict for those who sued Trump.


Leave a Comment